Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

raze_them_all_

The only sport iirc that women competed with men and beat them over a period of time was long distance ocean swimming.

Men and women are not equal. The best female sprinter has superior technique than usuain bolt. She ain't beating his world record though as genetics matter

grassylawn

Daragh1980 wrote: »

I wonder are some trans children a product of their environment?

There’s two Irish women on Twitter that are quite similar.

Always angry
Privileged upbringing
Lefties
Obsessed with identity politics for a long time
Hate centrists
Never condemn violent crime if perpetrated by a minority or poor person
Hang out with bearded men who find lots of stuff “problematic”

Both have publicly confirmed in last year or two that they each have a trans daughter.

This is very interesting. Has anyone found research into the topic?

Parental influence that "maleness is bad" seems like something that could cause boys to reject their sex.

Difficult to find relevant results as most query results are about trans parents or how to parent trans kids.

[The type you describe does demonstrate unthinking hostility to any men they aren't trying to get up on in my experience.]

Eric Cartman

Daragh1980 wrote: »

I wonder are some trans children a product of their environment?

There’s two Irish women on Twitter that are quite similar.

Always angry
Privileged upbringing
Lefties
Obsessed with identity politics for a long time
Hate centrists
Never condemn violent crime if perpetrated by a minority or poor person
Hang out with bearded men who find lots of stuff “problematic”

Both have publicly confirmed in last year or two that they each have a trans daughter.

A transgender kid is like a vegan cat, its not their decision

One eyed Jack

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

The only sport iirc that women competed with men and beat them over a period of time was long distance ocean swimming.

Men and women are not equal. The best female sprinter has superior technique than usuain bolt. She ain't beating his world record though as genetics matter

Even between two individual athletes of the same sex, they aren’t equal, because genetics matter. I would never suggest otherwise. Yet in spite of the fact that Usain Bolt is undoubtedly the fastest sprinter in the world, his competition didn’t throw up their hands and say they’re not competing if Usain is competing because he has an unfair biological advantage over them.

That’s what we’re expected to believe would happen to women’s sports if they’re permitted to compete with men. It’s not like we could actually compare Usain to Shelley Ann Fraser (if that’s who you mean?) as Usain has never given birth for one thing. It’s just impossible to make any kind of a comparison. Honestly never heard of her before now, I thought you might be referring to Flo-Jo.


32 Years Old & a Mum, Shelley-Ann Broke Usain Bolt’s Record


EDIT: I looked up that famous “football match” story too, it’s like the “Diet Coke Ad” men’s go-to rebuttal to sexism against women, turns out there was more to that story, as there always is -

Some People Think it's Funny That the USA Women's National Team Were Apparently Beaten by U15 Boys

grassylawn

grassylawn wrote: »

This is very interesting. Has anyone found research into the topic?

Parental influence that "maleness is bad" seems like something that could cause boys to reject their sex.

Difficult to find relevant results as most query results are about trans parents or how to parent trans kids.

[The type you describe does demonstrate unthinking hostility to any men they aren't trying to get up on in my experience.]

1990 study concluded that an overinvolved mother coupled with a weak father figure (uninvolved) was a factor in genetic boys identifying as girls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://smj.sma.org.sg/3105/3105a7.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8i8zqqLntAhW7TxUIHWvdDQcQFjAGegQIDhAB&usg=AOvVaw1_vP1JVm3liwfp4ss6qunt

It also said that a bad mother-daughter relationship was a factor in genetic girls identifying as boys.

Perhaps when children experience dysphoria the default response should be to look at whether the parents should change their behavior, not blocking the normal physical development of the child.

You can be completely non-judgmental and accepting of trans people and acknowledge that it is not a preferable state for a child over being cisgender. If it is not necessary for them to experience it that it would be better to avoid it.

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even between two individual athletes of the same sex, they aren’t equal, because genetics matter. I would never suggest otherwise. Yet in spite of the fact that Usain Bolt is undoubtedly the fastest sprinter in the world, his competition didn’t throw up their hands and say they’re not competing if Usain is competing because he has an unfair biological advantage over them.

That’s what we’re expected to believe would happen to women’s sports if they’re permitted to compete with men. It’s not like we could actually compare Usain to Shelley Ann Fraser (if that’s who you mean?) as Usain has never given birth for one thing. It’s just impossible to make any kind of a comparison. Honestly never heard of her before now, I thought you might be referring to Flo-Jo.


32 Years Old & a Mum, Shelley-Ann Broke Usain Bolt’s Record


EDIT: I looked up that famous “football match” story too, it’s like the “Diet Coke Ad” men’s go-to rebuttal to sexism against women, turns out there was more to that story, as there always is -

Some People Think it's Funny That the USA Women's National Team Were Apparently Beaten by U15 Boys

Of course the match didn't matter when they lost, but, if they'd won they'd have spun it like it was another important victory for women's sports, that report is just spin after the fact; they weren't trying while the boys were trying harder than normal. Total BS no elite competitive athletes like getting beaten let alone humiliated by youngsters.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true that anyone can adopt any position they like on anything and call themselves a feminist nowadays, but I wouldn’t insult anyone by immediately assuming they’re a feminist just because they have ideas in common with them

But basically you’re arguing in favour of equality of outcomes, whereas I’m arguing in favour of equality of opportunity, and that means that women competing with men are also paid the same as men and receive the same benefits as men. Men’s sports are generally speaking vastly more well paid than women’s and there’s much greater investment in men’s sports than women’s sports. Women should be given the opportunity to be able to participate at the same level as men. That way there wouldn’t be “women’s sports” or “men’s sports” as such, though like I said, organisations and governing bodies could still segregate by sex if that was important to them, and individuals could join whatever organisation and compete in that organisations events in the categories they trained for. I wouldn’t expect a 100m sprinter to compete in marathons for example.

The genetic advantage argument is as arbitrary as the sex argument IMO. It ignores so much other context and conditions in sports. Using the logic that sports are segregated to give women a chance and forecasting that women’s sports would die a death if men were permitted to compete, is predicated upon two assumptions which we know already are not true - women lose out to other women all the time and it doesn’t put those women off competing in spite of the fact that they know they can’t possibly win. The second assumption is that men if they were permitted to compete, would always win. Even if it were true that men would always win, it doesn’t follow that women would never want to participate in the first place, nor does it follow that women would quit the sport in their droves, and what’s more, they are now incentivised by the fact that they are being paid equal to men and they receive the same level of investment and support as the men do.

This wouldn’t just mean that some women will lose out, there’s no denying that, but also it means that some men will lose out, that can’t be denied either. It would fundamentally change how sports are organised, structured and participated in. The US would still take home the bulk of medals in competitions, while poorer countries which do not have the capacity for the same level of investment such as Ireland, plenty of athletes from here train on training programmes in the US, will still be proud that they qualified at all. A bit like the example set by the Thai ladies football team after getting their asses handed to them by the US ladies team (an example of not just a win, but humiliating their competition, just for good measure) - they took it as a learning experience and vowed to improve and invest in the sport and try and get a full time national league going. Such plans require significant investment, and I still don’t imagine they would be able to invest in the sport to the same level as a country like the US, but that doesn’t put them off trying. I’m not sure having a few Thai men on their team would have them fare any better against the US women’s team, but they would have that opportunity.

It’s not just about equality of opportunity between men and women, but rather it’s about equality of opportunity on all grounds, not just sex. That way, the people with the best skills and talent and motivation really do become elite athletes, and not only that but their welfare is considered an important aspect of their participation in sport too. It would undoubtedly put a dint in the “win at all costs” mentality that is evident in countries producing athletes like the US, China and Russia, with what appears to be in some cases very little concern for the athletes welfare, but I don’t see the current setup as one that is based upon merit, it appears to be based upon who is able to get the best value for their investment, hence the level of cheating already involved in sports, indeed to win at all costs, because it costs a lot to compete in the first place.

You say it’s a hollow victory if a woman can’t beat a man without men being handicapped by rules, but if women are treated as though they are ‘handicapped men’ in the first place, and never given the equal opportunity to compete with men, then arguments that they shouldn’t be able to compete against each other under the same rules and the same qualifying criteria ring just as hollow IMO, especially when we know that there are women who want to compete with the men and vice versa - there are men who want to compete with the women. In reality the only thing that appears to be stopping them is the moral panic being perpetuated that women’s sports will die and women won’t want to compete, but that’s simply not true. Some women won’t want to compete, some men won’t want to compete, but those who still want to compete because they love the sport, will be able to do so - nobody is excluded, everyone has equal opportunity to participate, and the outcomes will be a true reflection of who are the elite athletes or competitors in the sport. That also accommodates your idea of merit - reward for excellence. It’s a hollow victory if you feel you haven’t actually excelled because you know there is better than you out there, but you’re not allowed to compete against them.


EDIT: This is the example I was trying to think of in relation to what I was saying about cheating and the “win at all costs” mentality earlier. I knew cheating was endemic in both women’s and men’s sports, but this ones a cracker

The “Dirtiest Race”

The 100-meter event at the 1988 Seoul Games has been called the “dirtiest race” because of drug use by the competitors. Although Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson initially won, he was stripped of the medal just days later, after testing positive for stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. Johnson later claimed that it wasn’t really cheating if everyone else was using drugs. While that was maybe not the most-convincing argument, Johnson had a point. His gold medal was given to second-place finisher Carl Lewis, an American who had tested positive for banned stimulants during the U.S. Olympic trials that year but had avoided a suspension. Britain’s Linford Christie, who was upgraded to the silver medal, tested positive for pseudoephedrine, but the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later cleared him, after he blamed the test result on ginseng tea.

8 Olympic Cheating Scandals

I most certainly am not advocating for equality of outcome.

You most certainly not are advocating for equality of opportunity.

I believe the best should be the best, not that the best should be hampered with a handicap to let the others play.

Women can't compete with men and in order not to eradicate women in sport, or to dilute men's sport with token women, we have women divisions.

If we had no gender segregation in sport, women in most sports would cease to exist. I wouldn't like to see that.

Trans people should either have their own division or be only allowed compete in the category of which they were born, and also subject to testing for testosterone which may rule them out.

Much like it would be cruel and inhuman to allow a straw weight MMA fighter or boxer fight with a super heavyweight.
The fact is women cannot compete with men. They aren't good enough. It's not sexist to state that.

Why the hell would someone pay the best woman in football the same wage as the best man in football when there is a gulf of difference in the skill levels?

Why would there be the same level of investment in a team that nobody is interested in? Why would anyone invest in a sport where the elite women can get beaten by 15 year old boys?

And you want them to earn the same as the elite men?

Give yourself a wobble

fantaiscool

Deleted User wrote: »

I most certainly am not advocating for equality of outcome.

You most certainly not are advocating for equality of opportunity.

I believe the best should be the best, not that the best should be hampered with a handicap to let the others play.

Women can't compete with men and in order not to eradicate women in sport, or to dilute men's sport with token women, we have women divisions.

If we had no gender segregation in sport, women in most sports would cease to exist. I wouldn't like to see that.

Trans people should either have their own division or be only allowed compete in the category of which they were born, and also subject to testing for testosterone which may rule them out.

Much like it would be cruel and inhuman to allow a straw weight MMA fighter or boxer fight with a super heavyweight.
The fact is women cannot compete with men. They aren't good enough. It's not sexist to state that.

Why the hell would someone pay the best woman in football the same wage as the best man in football when there is a gulf of difference in the skill levels?

Why would there be the same level of investment in a team that nobody is interested in? Why would anyone invest in a sport where the elite women can get beaten by 15 year old boys?

And you want them to earn the same as the elite men?

Give yourself a wobble

Agree with you. Women will never sit around every week watching womens football in the same way that men watch mens football. Men are not interested in watching womens football for the most part. It comes down to viewers and how much money the sport draws. Why put womens football on and pay them lots of money when nobody will watch it. The tennis argument is a little different but again women want to be paid the same as men for doing less work. You never see women campaigning to play up to three sets rather than two.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why the hell would someone pay the best woman in football the same wage as the best man in football when there is a gulf of difference in the skill levels?

Why would there be the same level of investment in a team that nobody is interested in? Why would anyone invest in a sport where the elite women can get beaten by 15 year old boys?

And you want them to earn the same as the elite men?

All legitimate questions, which simply come down to the reason being that they want everyone to be treated equally; not treated as though they are the same and there are no differences between them, but treated equally.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Give yourself a wobble

I will admit I got a bit of a giggle out of this and I know you didn’t mean it in a bad way or anything, but I don’t mind admitting I’m a bit of a lardarse with a 20 a day smokes habit and my brother and his girlfriend when they used compete in bodybuilding competitions would often pass remarkable (as one does ), but the pair of them are quite literally shadows of their former selves since they retired from the sport and I easily outpace them now, though it ain’t pretty :pac:

Anyway, I’ll leave it there seeing as we’re at an impasse at this stage and the thread would only be going round in circles.

Sir Oxman

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/06/the-observer-view-on-the-high-courts-ruling-on-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-children

"Any questioning of the gender-affirming model – and the role that trauma, internalised hostility to same-sex attraction or misleading online material may play in gender dysphoria in teenagers – is dismissed as transphobic. This is a chilling state of affairs that is detrimental to child safety. There are children who will find last week’s judgment distressing and it is imperative they receive the professional support they need. Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve."

A parent who allows their prepubescent child to take puberty blockers should be prosecuted for child abuse in my opinion.

It's disgusting

Bonniedog

Apropos of the debate on transgender athletes, and topical to the events around the Shinners and tweeting, this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/andrews-in-apology-for-anti-trans-tweets-likes-39830416.html?fbclid=IwAR28E9LMMtKDACKtRG18GdjW_t268rBc5I_YIGTiXx9N1OyePiDTbMNH8oc

Why did he feel the need to apologise. Everyone knows it is true. SF made him apologise no doubt.

Sittingpretty

Bonniedog wrote: »

Apropos of the debate on transgender athletes, and topical to the events around the Shinners and tweeting, this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/andrews-in-apology-for-anti-trans-tweets-likes-39830416.html?fbclid=IwAR28E9LMMtKDACKtRG18GdjW_t268rBc5I_YIGTiXx9N1OyePiDTbMNH8oc

Why did he feel the need to apologise. Everyone knows it is true. SF made him apologise no doubt.

Does anyone actually have the balls to stand over their remarks anymore. To stand with their own opinion instead of folding to the will of group think?

mohawk

Bonniedog wrote: »

Apropos of the debate on transgender athletes, and topical to the events around the Shinners and tweeting, this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/andrews-in-apology-for-anti-trans-tweets-likes-39830416.html?fbclid=IwAR28E9LMMtKDACKtRG18GdjW_t268rBc5I_YIGTiXx9N1OyePiDTbMNH8oc

Why did he feel the need to apologise. Everyone knows it is true. SF made him apologise no doubt.

He liked the tweet in February!! Is there anything they don’t think is transphobic!!!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bonniedog wrote: »

Apropos of the debate on transgender athletes, and topical to the events around the Shinners and tweeting, this:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/andrews-in-apology-for-anti-trans-tweets-likes-39830416.html?fbclid=IwAR28E9LMMtKDACKtRG18GdjW_t268rBc5I_YIGTiXx9N1OyePiDTbMNH8oc

Why did he feel the need to apologise. Everyone knows it is true. SF made him apologise no doubt.

Imagine policing the tweets somebody likes? Who has time for that?

I think the worst thing that could have happened for trans people was when they declared that gender dysphoria was no longer a mental issue and something that was "a thing" that should just be accepted despite biological fact.

Bonniedog

God be with the days when if someone came out with some absurdity that some kind person would take them quietly aside and gently suggest that they keep it to themselves.

Now the baying mob attacks whoever points out a fact.

The thing about biological males conning their way into female sports is that it completely overturns generations of real struggle against real oppression to allow women to compete in the first place.

The tweet liked by Andrews merely posed the question as to how someone would feel if their daughter was done out of a place in the Olympics by a bloke. This is now treated as the equivalent of racial abuse or saying that gay people or Jews or Catholics should be killed.

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the worst thing that could have happened for trans people was when they declared that gender dysphoria was no longer a mental issue and something that was "a thing" that should just be accepted despite biological fact.

I think it's going to backfire. As much as they insist and cry a lot of people are not going to accept or say something that they do not believe just to spare people's feelings.

Insisting that anyone who questions any point of gender theory is a transphobe will just alienate people in the long run.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think it's going to backfire. As much as they insist and cry a lot of people are not going to accept or say something that they do not believe just to spare people's feelings.

Insisting that anyone who questions any point of gender theory is a transphobe will just alienate people in the long run.

And it’s just human nature to question, well, everything. That’s why messageboards like boards.ie exist. Because the human race is insatiable and curious.

Bonniedog

It is also a fairly accurate rule of thumb that those who believe in the most irrational things are those who will attempt to stop anyone questioning them. What is worrying now is that those who ought to know better are pandering to all of this.

When confronted with the cold bare truth that vulnerable children including gay teenagers are being pressured into believing they are a different sex, all their respectable mouthpieces like the Irish Times ignore it or muddy the waters.

The group who are behind hunting Andrews are a totally unrepresentative group given a large amount of taxpayers money to harass people under the cloak of "advocacy."

I have no time whatsoever for Andrews, but he was elected by fkn thousands of people. They are the ones who should get to say whether he stands again or is elected again. TENI staff would be lucky to find their way across town on a bus.

jaxxx

Bonniedog wrote: »

It is also a fairly accurate rule of thumb that those who believe in the most irrational things are those who will attempt to stop anyone questioning them. What is worrying now is that those who ought to know better are pandering to all of this.

When confronted with the cold bare truth that vulnerable children including gay teenagers are being pressured into believing they are a different sex, all their respectable mouthpieces like the Irish Times ignore it or muddy the waters.

The group who are behind hunting Andrews are a totally unrepresentative group given a large amount of taxpayers money to harass people under the cloak of "advocacy."

I have no time whatsoever for Andrews, but he was elected by fkn thousands of people. They are the ones who should get to say whether he stands again or is elected again. TENI staff would be lucky to find their way across town on a bus.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, should be immune to criticism or questioning. No exception. The fact that all so-called allies of 'gender identity' refuse to accept any sort of criticism, to label anything and everything that does not conform to their ideals as 'bigoted' is a massively terrifying concept, threatening everything from freedom of speech to even democracy itself. Now they're not the only only ones by any means, but they're certainly up there when it comes to those most forceful on it.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the worst thing that could have happened for trans people was when they declared that gender dysphoria was no longer a mental issue and something that was "a thing" that should just be accepted despite biological fact.

‘Twas less of a removal, and more of a reclassification, to in fact more accurately reflect biological fact, that gender identity disorder as it was then known, is not, in and of itself, a mental disorder -

World Health Organization removes "gender identity disorder" from list of mental illnesses


I get that you think it was the worst thing that could have happened for trans people, but the people affected by the decision in relation to themselves, welcomed the decision.

Bonniedog wrote: »

The thing about biological males conning their way into female sports is that it completely overturns generations of real struggle against real oppression to allow women to compete in the first place.

The idea of men attempting to con their way into women’s sports has always been the driving force behind violating women’s rights in the first place. From memory I think throughout the history of women’s sports there has only been one attempt some time in the 30’s, and if he was detected, then obviously the attempt to con anyone was just a bad plan in any case, though there have been numerous cases where it was speculated and remains unproven, casting doubt upon their achievements. I’d suggest you read up on the history of sex testing in women’s sports before expecting any claims regarding “generations of real struggle against oppression” should be taken seriously, when women are subjected to invasive violations of their human rights on the grounds of what amounts to nothing more than an unfounded fear, to compete in sports where they are treated worse than men. It just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for a man to try and con his way into a situation where not only would he be subject to the same treatment as women, but it’s quite likely if recent examples are anything to go by, that he would be castigated in public and subjected to widespread international public humiliation as in the example of the teenagers in Connecticut. He certainly wouldn’t by any means reach the elite levels in women’s sports, nor would he receive anything like the accolades, merit, and financial rewards for their achievements as the Williams sisters. To even suggest as much could even be possible is quite frankly, ludicrous.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And it’s just human nature to question, well, everything. That’s why messageboards like boards.ie exist. Because the human race is insatiable and curious.

It certainly is not an inherent part of human nature to question everything. If it were, the proliferation of fake news on social media as just one example of effective propaganda campaigns throughout human history would directly contradict your assertion. Boards manages to mitigate this effect somewhat by human intervention in the form of Moderators and Administrators who are tasked with the responsibility of maintaining an equal opportunity for all to express their opinions, and Boards is a tiny site in comparison to the behemoths that are Facebook, Twitter et al where the development of echo chambers are a characteristic of their business model - they feed people news and views which they are already attuned to, calculated by using algorithms which process data and analyse human behaviour patterns at capacities and speeds humans are simply incapable of. The human race, as a whole, are absolutely not insatiable and curious. We like our comfort and certainty of our own reality far too much to ever actually venture outside the confines of our own echo chambers. Not a bad thing in itself, but arguing otherwise is just being intellectually dishonest with oneself.

jaxxx wrote: »

Nothing, absolutely nothing, should be immune to criticism or questioning. No exception. The fact that all so-called allies of 'gender identity' refuse to accept any sort of criticism, to label anything and everything that does not conform to their ideals as 'bigoted' is a massively terrifying concept, threatening everything from freedom of speech to even democracy itself. Now they're not the only only ones by any means, but they're certainly up there when it comes to those most forceful on it.

They’re certainly not alone, but they are nowhere near being up anywhere in terms of being the most forceful on anything, simply by virtue of the fact fact that their numbers are vanishingly small for one thing, and secondly because they just don’t have the influence in society that they are portrayed to have by whatever sources you glean your information from which reinforces your already held beliefs (also known as prejudices, which by definition constitutes bigotry if manifestation of your beliefs have a negative impact upon other people). Using your argument, it appears to be only the things which YOU want to question shouldn’t be immune from questioning. I have no doubt for example that if someone were to question your deeply held beliefs, you’d perceive it to be an assault on your convictions. You wouldn’t be long throwing out derogatory labels and acting all high and mighty regarding yourself as morally superior to anyone who questions your convictions, ideas and beliefs either. Yet all they are doing is exactly as you have suggested - exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

We’re a little bit more restricted in Ireland and in Europe in terms of those rights, which has always struck me as something of an irony in that Europeans generally consider themselves to be more liberal than their US counterparts, but the US are not governed by European standards, so conservative opinions there are entitled to equal protection, and that’s far more protection than is offered for conservative opinions in Europe which presents as something of a paradox for people who advocate for free speech, as the US if we’re being honest is a bit of a shìt show in terms of what gets an airing in public policy and democratic processes, but in Europe because we’re restricted to behaving a bit more civilised towards each other, we have people making themselves out to be victims because they can’t take any kind of criticism or questioning of their ideas or deeply held beliefs!

It’s because of this that Boards has to constantly remind people that their rights to freedom of speech or freedom of expression are not being violated when they are sanctioned for expressing an opinion that they hold to be true, because the concept of free speech is not a thing on Boards, never has been, and your rights are not being violated when you are sanctioned for expressing an opinion you imagine is a widely held belief, like the idea that your being unable to say what you like is a threat to free speech and democracy itself, while at the same time someone gets their knickers in a bunch over someone expressing the opinion that trans women are women or any number of other ludicrous notions. It also doesn’t make them a <insert label of choice here> any more than your opinion makes you a bigot or anything else. It’s their opinion of you, same as you’re entitled to your opinion of them. Otherwise what you’re expecting and demanding is a double standard - protection for you and your ideas, and the denial of protections for people and ideas whose ideas are offensive or otherwise illogical or you perceive them as an infringement in some way upon your worldview or way of life. In reality it’s not a democracy you want at all, but an autocracy where only your ideas and opinions are courted as fact and all decisions are subject to your authority. It’s not even a totalitarian ideology, it’s the antithesis of a democratic society, and certainly not one that I would wish upon anyone even as much as we might disagree with each other. It’s the fact that we live in a democratic society gives everyone that freedom to disagree, while restricting anyone acting upon their perceived right of freedom to be a dick. Nobody has that right, and so in that context at least, all people are equal before the law in Ireland, including, since the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act in 2015, people who are transgender.

suicide_circus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Imagine policing the tweets somebody likes? Who has time for that?

People who dont or cant work

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

People who dont or cant work

I can’t work and even I cannot imagine doing that!

suicide_circus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I can’t work and even I cannot imagine doing that!

Quite. But the reason they audit strangers' twitter history is the same reason they can't work..if you get me.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Quite. But the reason they audit strangers' twitter history is the same reason they can't work..if you get me.

Total speculation. It's probably somebody in FG HQ, or someone on their social media team.

RWCNT

Until reading this I had no idea that Twitter makes what you "like" public :eek: - I assumed it just tallied your "like" up with the number beside the little heart. I've never known who's liked any of my tweets.

I don't think I've liked anything too controversial but as I have nearly everyone from work on there I'll be mindful in future.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

Until reading this I had no idea that Twitter makes what you "like" public :eek: - I assumed it just tallied your "like" up with the number beside the little heart. I've never known who's liked any of my tweets.

I don't think I've liked anything too controversial but as I have nearly everyone from work on there I'll be mindful in future.

I suspect a lot of people are unaware of that feature of Twitter. Hence how people get caught out. People should stand by what they like though, IMO.

jam_mac_jam

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I suspect a lot of people are unaware of that feature of Twitter. Hence how people get caught out. People should stand by what they like though, IMO.

Or just stay off Twitter so the Stassi can't come for you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Or just stay off Twitter so the Stassi can't come for you.

I do think politicians should steer clear.